Political & Elections

BigG · Guru

Why the Republicans Will Lose in 12

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I don't think I was considering full employment, but certainly unemployment is an issue. A liberal (like me) might consider having the government pay some of the salary/expenses so a domestic employee could be competitive with a foreign employee.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Your example more or less presupposes full employment. confuse

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

The concept of "comparative advantage" is like the concept of a "free market" in that it is useful in modeling behaviors of some real "actors" in the world economy. It breaks down when "actors", like China, are actually able to game the system to their advantage.

China may be in some cases ignoring their comparative advantage. That doesn't mean we should ignore our comparative advantage.

I don't know why you'd think that the concept of comparative advantage requires a free market. It's just a method of maximizing return. My favorite example of comparative advantage is a mother and six-year-old child. They want to go to the park, but they have jobs around the house to do first. The mother, being a competent adult, is faster at every single household task: she makes beds faster, makes sandwiches faster, loads the dishwasher faster, sweeps the floor faster, empties the garbage faster. That is, she has a relative advantage in everything. So, then, if they want to get out of the house in the shortest time, to get off to the park where she can drink a latte and he can play soccer with his friends, should she do all the jobs?

No! That's where comparative advantage comes in. She does NOT have a comparative advantage at everything. The boy should start with the task in which he has a comparative advantage, and she should start with the task in which she has a comparative advantage. Even if all he does is empty the garbage while she does everything else, that's still faster than her doing everything.

By the same token, even if Warren Buffett is the best mower of lawns in the greater Omaha area, he still shouldn't be mowing his own lawn.

-- Edited by Cardinal Fang on Monday 31st of January 2011 07:55:26 PM

poetgrl · Senior Member

I see nothing in the state of our economy today that indicates economists have learned anything in 40 years.

No. In fact, these kind of idealistic "actor" models, which leave out manipulation and human psychology are exactly how the quants got us into the financial sector crash, in the first place.

But, and this is important: comparative advantage is only a relevent issue when the markets are free. Our market is free. China's is not.

BigG · Guru

"Comparative advantage" is an intellectual construct that is akin to, and dependant upon, the "free market".

The implicit assumption is that countries are unable to actively manipulate world supply and demand and must seek "niches", market positions, that they can economically fill better than other countries.

The lesson of the past few decades is that large countries, such as China, are indeed able to manipulate both hard product markets and capital markets to their advantage through effective planned policy and predation on relatively unregulated countries.

The concept of "comparative advantage" is like the concept of a "free market" in that it is useful in modeling behaviors of some real "actors" in the world economy. It breaks down when "actors", like China, are actually able to game the system to their advantage.

The basic assumption of a free market is that no participant is big enough to unilaterally effect the market. The basic assumption of comparative advantage is that no participant is able to unilaterally choose which niche to fill. Participants must react and cannot be proactive.

All this is from Economics 1A and 1B back in the ancient times. I see nothing in the state of our economy today that indicates economists have learned anything in 40 years.

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 31st of January 2011 03:02:39 PM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

BigG, can you clarify what you're advocating? Do you favor autarky, where the US has no imports or exports?

For me, I don't think Vietnamese people are inherently better at sewing T-shirts. However, they're definitely cheaper at sewing T-shirts.

Reading up on comparative advantage, what it is, why it's relevant, could be helpful.

BigG · Guru

Plus the idea a big country "needs" other countries to do things "better" for it is just wrong headed. Countries need raw materials they do not have domestically. Importing finished goods is just giving away wealth to other societies.

Or does anyone believe that some ethnic groups are "inherently" better at building cars or cuckoo clocks or integrated circuits?

A country is NOT a family or even a small town.

BigG · Guru

Cardinal Fang,

When they have ALL the physical factories, they will simply write off the loans or more likely dump them to destroy what is left of our economy.

Our leaders and their leaders are not "playing the same game".

The only thing that really matters is physical possession within your own soverign territory of physical assets.

Any paper assets or titles to assets that exist outside the realm of your own countries' soverign territory is subject to dissolution by fiat of the possessing society.

I would think China's poor record with respect to intellectual property would have convinced people they are not dealing in good faith.

It is a war. We started with a big advantage but day by day, job by job, our "elite"
are "giving away the store".

Of course the transnational corporations could always depend on "international law" to enforce their property rights.

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 31st of January 2011 02:23:18 PM

poetgrl · Senior Member

the biggest aid we give is in the form of all the free police work we do around the world, which costs us billions and billions of dollars. If you do not believe we give "aid" then you do not have a clue about the IMF, which is financed mainly by the US, and which is currently the one responsible for a HUGE amount of the debt restructuring going on in Europe right now.

Not to mention all the backdoor aid we give through the Fed.

There is so much aid given by the US, to foreign banks and foreign economies, I sometimes honestly wonder if the government is paying any attention.

[url/]http://www.house.gov/jec/imf/11-18-03.pdf

To paraphrase: Fifty billion here, five billions there, 27 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

-- Edited by poetgrl on Monday 31st of January 2011 11:47:44 AM

-- Edited by poetgrl on Monday 31st of January 2011 11:50:31 AM

-- Edited by poetgrl on Monday 31st of January 2011 11:51:12 AM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

When the Chinese feel they have enough foreign investment, they will simply nationalize everything there.

The Chinese investment in America is in the form of US government securities, which is to say, loans. What would it even mean to nationalize a loan? And even if their investment was in the form of ownership of US assets (US stock, land in the US) what would it mean to nationalize those assets? To nationalize is to seize assets. You can't seize assets you already have.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

God, who cares if we piss off our "allies." Most of our "allies" are only our "allies" because we send them aid.

This is simply incorrect.

Which countries do we give the most money to? Israel and Egypt, to not fight each other. Other than that, the US doesn't give much foreign aid.

Which countries are our major allies? Certainly not Egypt. Canada and Western Europe, I'd say. We give those countries a negligible amount of foreign aid.

BigG · Guru

If the US capital base continues to move offshore, we will not produce anything at all to sell in international markets.

Why does the government need to borrow? Most particularly why does the government need to borrow from foreigners?

The capital that took generations to accumulate in this society has been shipped to foreign countries with antagonistic sociopolitical systems. That is why tax revenue doesn't meet government needs.

When the Chinese feel they have enough foreign investment, they will simply nationalize everything there.

Any "financial services" and "insurance" that has been "developed" will be obviated by simple fiat of the standing committee of the Communist Party, who do run things there, absoutely totally and completely.

WE ARE AT WAR! Not with the radical islamists who are poorly organized and weak, but with a nuclear armed and sophisticated adversary.

If Hitler had had the kind of financial leverage we have given the Chinese, how would World War II have gone?

poetgrl · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Looting the treasury by.... lending us money? How's that again?

What happens the day after we piss off our allies, and every country in the world?

God, who cares if we piss off our "allies." Most of our "allies" are only our "allies" because we send them aid. The Chinese are not our allies, they are our trade partners, but you would never put up with their practices in an ally. It's preposterous. They just want our open markets and to steal our technology. We just give them things we wouldn't even give to Canada.

But, the real reason the republicans are going to lose in 12 is because they were elected to deal with the economy and they are, instead, advancing their social agenda. Dumb move.

"And if we have no international trade, we're worse off."

Maybe.

We are the largest consumer nation. Trust me, the other countries benefit more from international trade than we do. Globalization benefits those at the very tippy top of the economic food chain, internationally, (also government workers), and those at the very bottom.

-- Edited by poetgrl on Monday 31st of January 2011 11:06:29 AM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Time for a little macro lesson, class. Today's topic is International Trade.

Americans buy goods and services produced in other countries (imports) and we sell American goods and services overseas (exports). As it turns out, we buy abroad a lot more than we sell abroad. That means the rest of the world ends up with extra dollars.

So the rest of the world has all these extra dollars. What do they do with them? They don't stuff them under a mattress; in the main, they buy American government bonds, which is the same as loaning money to the US government.

Now, suppose American bonds were worthless to foreigners. Then, obviously, no foreigner would buy them. This would be very bad for Americans for several reasons. First, foreign businesses would stop selling anything in dollars, because they wouldn't want to exchange valuable products for worthless dollars. But, you say, no problem, I could just convert my dollars to Euros and buy my Mercedes with Euros. Unfortunately for you, that would be difficult: no European bank or private business would exchange your worthless (to them) dollars for valuable Euros. So that's problem number one: US imports would crash.

Here's problem number two: the US government spends the dollars it gets from sales of government securities. We need to be able to borrow.

Maybe you think the US would be better off if we simply didn't interact with the rest of the world: no imports, no exports. It turns out that belief is misguided.

Trade is good. It makes the people on both sides of the trade better off (otherwise, they wouldn't have made the trade). Our family could, I suppose, go off somewhere, buy some land, build a house, dig a well, plant some crops and get a cow, a pig and a sheep. We could make our own clothes and grow our own food. But we're better off trading my husband writing programs for someone in the Salinas Valley growing our vegetables and someone in Vietnam sewing our shirts.

For the same reason, the US is better off trading with other countries. We do what we do best, and they do what they do best. And for that to work, we have to be able to sell US securities (=US debt, they are the same thing). If no foreigners can buy US debt, we have no international trade, and if we have no international trade, we're worse off.

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Honestly, our allies need us more than we need them. We are a huge export market for the worlds biggest economies.

Not if we don't pay for those imports!

ME: I would like to buy 200 T-shirts.

CHINESE COMPANY: That will be $1000.

ME: OK, here is your $1000. Thank you for the shirts.

CHINESE COMPANY: I would like to buy a T-bill.

US GOVERNMENT: That will be $1000.

CHINESE COMPANY: OK, here is your $1000. Thank you for the T-bill.

US GOVERNMENT: Your T-bill is worth nothing now! Mwahaha!

CHINESE COMPANY: That's the last time I ever sell anything to an American.

The same goes for the German car company and the French vintner. Who's going to sell to someone who doesn't pay?

Obviously they won't buy any government debt. What's your point?

Goods transactions within the US are pretty much a requirement. The US market is the difference between profit and loss for a great many of the world's largest and medium sized companies.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Honestly, our allies need us more than we need them. We are a huge export market for the worlds biggest economies.

Not if we don't pay for those imports!

ME: I would like to buy 200 T-shirts.

CHINESE COMPANY: That will be $1000.

ME: OK, here is your $1000. Thank you for the shirts.

CHINESE COMPANY: I would like to buy a T-bill.

US GOVERNMENT: That will be $1000.

CHINESE COMPANY: OK, here is your $1000. Thank you for the T-bill.

US GOVERNMENT: Your T-bill is worth nothing now! Mwahaha!

CHINESE COMPANY: That's the last time I ever sell anything to an American.

The same goes for the German car company and the French vintner. Who's going to sell to someone who doesn't pay?

Abyss · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reneging

Only allow redemption of T-bills bought by and held by US citizens.

Don't the bills have serial numbers? Doesn't the Treasury know who bought them?

Pass laws to cancel the ones sold to China and other foreign entities. Pay the rest. Don't honor secondary market transfers.

The Constitution is susposed to protect US citizens, not foreign thugs who are looting the capital base of the US economy.

The many are being improvished day by day for the few to prosper. Time to break things. Breaking the world financial system and daring anyone to start a war seems like a better idea every day.

The blue collar workers and their ancestors fought and bled and died to establish and maintain this country. IMHO that trumps, absolutely, totally, and completely, China's "right" to be repaid or Wall Street's "right" to wheel and deal in international circles.

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 30th of January 2011 06:32:05 PM

I guess that works in theory - hard to see how it works in practice though. If legislation like this starts making its way through Congress then China will liquidate its holdings. They come through relatively unscathed, like I said before.

I just don't see how it's workable.

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 30th of January 2011 09:33:56 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Looting the treasury by.... lending us money? How's that again?

What happens the day after we piss off our allies, and every country in the world?

Honestly, our allies need us more than we need them. We are a huge export market for the worlds biggest economies.

And thanks for the spelling tip. You learn something new every day.

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 30th of January 2011 09:30:58 PM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Looting the treasury by.... lending us money? How's that again?

What happens the day after we piss off our allies, and every country in the world?

BigG · Guru

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reneging

Only allow redemption of T-bills bought by and held by US citizens.

Don't the bills have serial numbers? Doesn't the Treasury know who bought them?

Pass laws to cancel the ones sold to China and other foreign entities. Pay the rest. Don't honor secondary market transfers.

The Constitution is susposed to protect US citizens, not foreign thugs who are looting the capital base of the US economy.

The many are being improvished day by day for the few to prosper. Time to break things. Breaking the world financial system and daring anyone to start a war seems like a better idea every day.

The blue collar workers and their ancestors fought and bled and died to establish and maintain this country. IMHO that trumps, absolutely, totally, and completely, China's "right" to be repaid or Wall Street's "right" to wheel and deal in international circles.

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 30th of January 2011 06:32:05 PM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

How exactly would one selectively renege? China merely unloads their debt on the secondary market (for a huge loss, but still better than nothing).

And of course domestic owners of Treasury notes take the same haircut. No, no, this is just not workable.

BTW, renegE. The word has an E on the end.

Abyss · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

Abyss is wrong about selective reneging.

Congress passes a law, the President signs it, the military enforces it.

What do you think "soverign" means?

In essence it means being able to force people to do what the soverign authority says.

Who cares if they don't like us. They don't anyway.
Who cares if they won't loan us any more of "our" money. The governemnt shouldn't borrow from foreigners anyway.

Right now 25% of Americans are being disadvantaged by "the way things are".
Do we have to wait until it is 50 or 75% to act?

How exactly would one selectively reneg? China merely unloads their debt on the secondary market (for a huge loss, but still better than nothing).

It's impossible to do. You either reneg/restructure or you don't. There is no middle ground.

BigG · Guru

Abyss is wrong about selective reneging.

Congress passes a law, the President signs it, the military enforces it.

What do you think "soverign" means?

In essence it means being able to force people to do what the soverign authority says.

Who cares if they don't like us. They don't anyway.
Who cares if they won't loan us any more of "our" money. The governemnt shouldn't borrow from foreigners anyway.

Right now 25% of Americans are being disadvantaged by "the way things are".
Do we have to wait until it is 50 or 75% to act?

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

I tend to agree with them that a better plan would be to reduce our spending and increase taxes versus just allowing the government to borrow more.

I agree that we need to reduce spending and increase taxes, rather than just borrowing and borrowing. But in the very short term, failing to increase the debt limit means reneging on interest payments, which would be very bad.

We easily have enough tax receipts to make interest payments and roll debt over. We'd have to cut massive amounts of government - but it certainly is mathematically possible to not default on debt while not increasing the debt ceiling.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I tend to agree with them that a better plan would be to reduce our spending and increase taxes versus just allowing the government to borrow more.

I agree that we need to reduce spending and increase taxes, rather than just borrowing and borrowing. But in the very short term, failing to increase the debt limit means reneging on interest payments, which would be very bad.

Abyss · Senior Member

Bullet wrote:

Tell that to Greece. And Mexico...

It's impossible to reneg *only* on foreign held debt, which is what BigG seemingly called for.

Bullet · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

You forgot the plan to simply renege on the foreign debt, Cardinal.

You know how something's so horrifying you just put it out of your mind? Yeah. Like that.

So, Bullet, you and I are in agreement that repudiating the foreign debt would lead to disaster. What is your view about the Tea Party's plan to not raise the US debt ceiling?

I tend to agree with them that a better plan would be to reduce our spending and increase taxes versus just allowing the government to borrow more.

Funny, when someone like you or I overextend our credit cards and miss a payment of two, the banks don't increase OUR credit limits, do they? Why should Uncle Sam's be raised? He sure hasn't seemed to learn any improvements to his current methods, has he?

-- Edited by Bullet on Sunday 30th of January 2011 03:08:54 PM

Bullet · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

Due to secondary market trading it's impossible to reneg on foreign debt.

Tell that to Greece. And Mexico...

Abyss · Senior Member

Due to secondary market trading it's impossible to reneg on foreign debt.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

You forgot the plan to simply renege on the foreign debt, Cardinal.

You know how something's so horrifying you just put it out of your mind? Yeah. Like that.

So, Bullet, you and I are in agreement that repudiating the foreign debt would lead to disaster. What is your view about the Tea Party's plan to not raise the US debt ceiling?

Abyss · Senior Member

Bullet wrote:
Acquiesce, or call our loans due.

Just because we make a move in the "world's big game of chess" doesn't mean our opponents don't get to play a counter-move.

I'd prefer to see our leaders enforce reciprosity in our trade agreements between our trade partners. For every dollar's worth of goods you want us to accept, you need to accept the same level of goods from us. Our tariffs on YOUR goods are set to match the tariffs you set on ours. This way, China has no leg to stand on to complain that our trade practices are unfair.

And I'd also like to see us stop the flow of jobs to overseas by punishing OUR companies who use these practices through heavy tax penalties. Make it so it ISN'T cheaper to move your labor pool to China, or your customer service center to India. Again, this doesn't punish trade partners directly, and instead punishes our greedy CEOs.

-- Edited by Bullet on Sunday 30th of January 2011 04:50:19 AM

How do they call our loans due? I wasn't aware that was even possible. They can sell the bills/bonds they own on the secondary market and they continue choose to not buy anymore US govt debt. That is their only recourse.

We have far more power in any trade negotiation because they rely on our money *far* more than we need them.

Bogney · Senior Member

Bullet, nice metaphor on politics.

Bullet · Senior Member

You forgot the plan to simply reneg on the foreign debt, Cardinal. There is another idea where two folks with opposing views sometimes (like us) are in lock-step agreement as being catastrophically foolish.

Glad to see you finally agree with me being correct! biggrin

-- Edited by Bullet on Sunday 30th of January 2011 01:35:15 PM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Instant balancing of the Federal budget, what's not to like?

Unless you are an "international financier" or some such.

Or unless you have a foolish irrational dislike of 50% inflation. Or unless you, like virtually everyone in the United States, buy things made abroad. Or unless you're a business some of whose suppliers are foreign. Or unless you'd like to make some financial plans for the future: save for retirement or college expenses.

Bullet and I have had our differences, but this "Just print 14 trillion bucks" plan unites right and left. We agree that it's a spectacularly, catastrophically bad idea that would lead to financial Armageddon.

BigG · Guru

Isn't "starve the beast" the exact strategy that got us into debt?

How can anyone who has the sense God gave arthropods still think this is viable public policy? They either hate America and are trynig to destroy it or are just stupid and coasting on their connections.

Isn't expecting the "state" to "wither away" communist doctrine?

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 30th of January 2011 01:29:25 PM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Even without Sarah Palin, the Republicans have to deal with infighting in their party between the business-friendly Boehner wing of the party and the Tea Party wing. And then there's Paul Ryan, wanting to apply Starve the Beast to Medicare, a strategy that would drive off seniors en masse if the Republicans in general adopted it.

BigG · Guru

Not being able to borrow "money", whatever that is, outside the soverign limits of the United States would be a good thing.

If we cancelled the national debt, one way or another, and quit Afganistan and Iraq, we wouldn't need to borrow money.

Instant balancing of the Federal budget, what's not to like?

Unless you are an "international financier" or some such.

We could just wait until China has stripped all the productive assests from the country before acting...

Over 25%, a quarter, of our population is currently being subjected to predation by a foreign power.That represents the unemployment and "underemployment" numbers.
Here is a link from that bastion of "liberal" thought George Will;
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/14/no-rational-exuberance.html

If the Federal government will not act to stop this, what good is it?

Of course good old President W. certainly made a lot of political capital from failing his primary function. Why shouldn't President O. ?

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 30th of January 2011 01:09:41 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 30th of January 2011 01:10:34 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 30th of January 2011 01:11:35 PM

Bullet · Senior Member

Back to the OP's question: "Why the Republicans will lose in 12".

Two words: Sarah Palin.

Get her to shut up and go fishing in Alaska from say, now until November of next year, and then it changes to being "the only way they can win" being summarized in two other words: Unemployment Rate. Hope it stays above 9% (and most likely it will), hammer that point home, and they have a shot. Otherwise, the field is just too weak to unseat a charismatic incumbent.

The fact that the Republicans only hope is to pray that Americans continue to suffer does make me throw up in my mouth a little. But it is the same method the Dems used when they were able to use the last time they successfully unseated a Republican, placing a slick-talking womanizer in control.

Politics, the great "ipecac" of America. You take it, knowing its gonna make you throw up...

-- Edited by Bullet on Sunday 30th of January 2011 01:05:50 PM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

BigG, I'm curious about why we'd want to make the Zimbabwe move of printing out enormous amounts of money. Aside from all the foreign policy problems Bullet lays out, the domestic consequence would be runaway inflation. The tactic didn't work for Zimbabwe and it wouldn't work for us either.

A little bit of inflation (say 4%) might solve the problem of sticky prices and wages, and get more people back to work. But printing out fourteen trillion dollars of new money wouldn't cause a little bit of inflation-- it would cause massive, runaway, Weimar inflation.

john doe · Guru

Its hard to predict what will happen in 2012. I would expect that Obama will win reelection as he's the only adult in the room and the economy will be in better shape in 2 years.

As far as abortion etc - nobody cares about these issues except the extremes at both ends of the political spectrum in general. Its all about jobs. As the Republicans are squandering their time with abortion nonsense etc., it doesn't bode well for them at this stage.

Bullet · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

Monetize the debt or simply repudiate the foreign portion.

What they gonna do, nuke us?

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 30th of January 2011 07:11:41 AM

Worse. Never lend us money again would be a starter. Closing their borders to our products would be next. Removing US influence from world trade policy decisions would be another consequence.

Military might is only one form of world power. Usually the least reliant as well in getting others to do what you want, particularly for the US, who doesn't put the threat of the sword to our opponents throats in most of our dealings on the world stage. Economic power is much more useful in dictating world manuevers, and your suggestion would simply take that advantage out of our hands and GIVE it to the Chinese...

As to level of GDP compared to our "friends" in the EU? Well, do you really want to start another arms race over there? Or do you want us to cut our defense spending to levels where the free world's global interests and stability is no longer gauranteed? Which is it? Perhaps we could get the EU to send us money in exchange for our military support, but that does have the smell of being the world's mercenaries--not exactly the guiding principles we put our faith and sweat into...

-- Edited by Bullet on Sunday 30th of January 2011 08:28:31 AM

BigG · Guru

Monetize the debt or simply repudiate the foreign portion.

What they gonna do, nuke us?

We need to do this before our industrial base loses the ability to produce high tech weapons systems.

Ever lower "standards of living" have been a reality for blue collar workers for decades due to outsourcing. Now this is beginning to bite white collar workers.

Subtract out our high priced medical and legal costs and we are behind the other G8 nations in GDP. And how much of our GDP is military, percentage wise an almost non-existent sector in other G8 nations?

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 30th of January 2011 07:11:41 AM

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Bullet- excellent post.

Bullet · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

Oh, and the number one thing they can do is unpeg the Yuan from the dollar. Tariff their goods until they acquiesce.

Acquiesce, or call our loans due.

Just because we make a move in the "world's big game of chess" doesn't mean our opponents don't get to play a counter-move.

I'd prefer to see our leaders enforce reciprosity in our trade agreements between our trade partners. For every dollar's worth of goods you want us to accept, you need to accept the same level of goods from us. Our tariffs on YOUR goods are set to match the tariffs you set on ours. This way, China has no leg to stand on to complain that our trade practices are unfair.

And I'd also like to see us stop the flow of jobs to overseas by punishing OUR companies who use these practices through heavy tax penalties. Make it so it ISN'T cheaper to move your labor pool to China, or your customer service center to India. Again, this doesn't punish trade partners directly, and instead punishes our greedy CEOs.

-- Edited by Bullet on Sunday 30th of January 2011 04:50:19 AM

Abyss · Senior Member

longprime wrote:

If China decouples from US Dollar, Everything will cost more in the US.
Are you/we willing to have a lower standard of living?

A pegged currency between an economy of that size is highly unnatural and distorting. It accelerates job loss in the US in order to benefit job gain for the Chinese.

longprime · Guru

If China decouples from US Dollar, Everything will cost more in the US.
Are you/we willing to have a lower standard of living?

Cartera · Guru

I only hope the Republican efforts with regard to abortion and health care get some press. I don't think most people will see it as a good move. They are throwing a bone to the right wingnuts hoping the rest of us won't notice.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

Oh, and the number one thing they can do is unpeg the Yuan from the dollar. Tariff their goods until they acquiesce.

Agree with this.

As for the republicans winning the senate, or keeping the house, if they get to enamored of their social agenda? Never happen. You have to win the independents and the independents are sick of all of this and intend to toss them all out over and over and over until they "get it."

Abyss · Senior Member

Oh, and the number one thing they can do is unpeg the Yuan from the dollar. Tariff their goods until they acquiesce.